On Nov. 8, Missouri voters will have the opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” on this year’s midterm election ballot in response to a proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution. 

A vote “yes” on the proposal would effectively amend Section 21, Article X of the Missouri Constitution and allow the Missouri General Assembly to increase the minimum funding required for police forces that are established by a state board of police commissioners. The amendment would create an exception to Section 21, which otherwise forbids funding increases of services unless the state specifically pays for that increase. Because the Kansas City Police Department is currently the only state-controlled police force in Missouri, the proposed amendment would only affect the KCPD and Kansas City for the time being. The primary outcome would be an increase in the KCPD’s minimum funding by 2027 without reimbursement to the city. A vote “no” would veto this proposal. 

Advocates of Amendment 4 suggest that this bill would prevent further attempts to defund the KCPD, as explained by Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer (R-34) who sponsored the measure.

“This [amendment] ensures the brave men and women in the KCPD have the resources they need to keep our city safe,” Sen. Luetkemeyer said.

Other advocates for the amendment express concern that our local officials are not equipped to make these decisions themselves: “The actions of the mayor and city council last year raised tremendous alarm regarding the stability of funding for something as important as the Kansas City Police Department,” Rep. Doug Richey (R-39) said.

However, critics of Amendment 4 argue that the proposal would be an overreach of government power, noting that every other city in the state maintains lo CXCV cal control.

“It just makes absolutely no sense that the state legislature would dictate how our local government should allocate its resources – all for the protection of the police in response to a false narrative of defunding,” Gwen Grant, president and CEO of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City, said.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas weighed in on the matter earlier this year, expressing a similar sentiment: “I do not support anything that takes away our ability to work with our local police department and neighborhood leaders in terms of how we get to better solutions for violent crime.”

While the common talking points appear to mirror a two-sided debate between Republican and Democratic parties, some argue that the issue should be a place of common ground between parties.

“This is not a Black or white issue,” Vernon Percy Howard Jr., adjunct professor of at William Jewell College, said. “This is an American issue, symptomatic of a democracy in crisis and under siege, where state overreach is rampant in the stripping of voting and governance power from the people.” 

Howard – a Jewell graduate (‘86), pastor at St. Mark’s Church in Kansas City and President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City – continues: “[Amendment 4] further erodes democratic principles by stripping from local communities the voice and power to determine their own policies and budgets which impact the well-being of their children, families and communities…Don’t local communities reserve the right to self-governance on key local issues?”

In 2020, Howard was also the recipient of Jewell’s Invictus Social Justice Award and the Harold L. Holliday Civil Rights Award from the Missouri branch of the NAACP for his work in organizing and educating Kansas City communities about civil rights issues and activism. With proposals such as Amendment 4, Howard emphasized that voters should be aware of their historical and local implications.

“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr….called this kind of overreach ‘interposition and nullification,’ citing the early mid-twentieth century movement among states to disrupt and turn back the rights of Blacks to vote and gain access and inclusion within the mainstream of American prosperity,” Howard said. “Critical thinkers and 21st century global leaders own the moral responsibility to remain awake on these issues. Particularly, the Jewell educated scholar, who takes seriously one of the critical questions of our core curriculum, which is, ‘how shall we live?'”

Election Day is on Nov. 8. Registered voters in Clay County can find their polling place here, and check their registration status here. For more voter resources, click on the link here.

On Aug. 2, over 900,000 Kansas voters bustled to local election offices in what would come to be a record-breaking turnout for the state’s primary elections.

On the ballot, Kansans faced a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have effectively remove the right to an abortion. Voters overwhelmingly refused the measure by nearly 20 percentage points, which was the first of five abortion-related issues set to be voted upon this year in the country.

A “yes” vote for the proposed amendment would have been in favor of removing abortion as a protected right from the Kansas constitution — ultimately allowing legislators to introduce restrictions and bans in the future. A “no” vote would have rejected this amendment and leave protections for abortion rights in place.

As expected for a controversial issue, campaigns on both sides raised millions of dollars in funding in the months leading up to the election. The two most popular campaigns were “Value Them Both” for accepting the proposed amendment, and “Vote No Kansas” for rejecting the measure.

For some Kansans, the ballot language was regarded as confusing, not clearly stating whether a “yes” or “no” vote would accept or reject the measure. To add to the uncertainty, an anonymous source texted Kansans a false statement on the morning of the election: “Women in KS are losing their choice on reproductive rights. Voting YES on the amendment will give women a choice. Vote YES to protect women’s health.”

With the turnout nearly doubling that of previous primaries, the highly anticipated election amassed a vote count rivaling that of the 2020 presidential election, short only a few hundred thousand votes. In total, more Kansas residents cast votes for or against the proposed amendmendent than voted for Donald Trump (R, 771,406) or Joseph Biden (D, 570,323) individually in 2020.

Following the Supreme Court’s June 24 bombshell decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Kansas sought out voter approval before enforcing or rejecting proposed restrictions. In contrast, other states, such as Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota and Wisconsin, quickly enacted trigger laws — policies set in place to restrict abortion access in anticipation of such a ruling.

Kansas resident Melissa Leavitt requested a recount in nine of Kansas’ 105 counties, paid for by anti-abortion activist Mark Gietzen and online fundraising. Reporting the new results on Aug. 20, less than 100 votes changed compared to the count on Aug. 2 and the state confirmed the rejection of the measure.

As of Aug. 25, 12 states have effectively banned abortion access for their residents; meanwhile three states carry restrictions relating to gestational age, and several others wait on court decisions and legal clarification before enforcement.

With Missouri spearheading bans on the medical procedure, residents must travel out-of-state for abortion-related services. Further, Two clinics in Overland Park, KS, best serve Missouri’s Kansas City Metro area, including the William Jewell College community.

In the weeks leading up to the election, several Jewell students took to social media to educate others on the implications of the proposed amendment. For them, the election was more than just a neighboring state’s problem.

“A lot of uterus-having-people feared for their lives [on the night of the election],” Mia Page, a Missouri resident and music performance major, explained. “Even if it’s not in my state, [the outcome] gives hope to the rest of the country.”

Communications major Edward James Rapstine IV added to this sentiment: “[Some of] my best friends are from Kansas. It impacts them, and if it impacts them, it impacts me.”

However, to others, the Kansas primary outcome highlighted the power of allowing individuals to vote by issue rather than relying on elected representatives.

“[The results] show that a traditionally red state can vote for a more democratic policy when rights are questioned,” Darby Slaughter said, a Missouri resident and history and theater dual major.

To many students and voters — as evidenced by the record Kansas turnout — voting by issue may prove to be an improvement rather than relying on elected officials as traditionally expected for proposals relating to contentious issues.

“I was pleasantly surprised when Kansas allowed voting on the issue of abortion rather than simply illegalizing it like many other states did,” Alexis Harper, a Kansas resident and biology major, said.

Despite the Kansas outcome, the United States remains a battleground for access to reproductive services, and individuals in the Kansas City metro still risk a 40-minute drive turning to a multi-day trip for in-person services if further restrictions are adopted in the state.

Although Missouri did not defer to voters for abortion-related measures this past primary election, the Kansas turnout and results may serve as an incentive to expand vote-by-issue ballots to include  other contentious issues. In August 2020, voters accepted a proposal to expand Medicaid coverage, but the change was not implemented until October 2021. Currently, Missouri voters are set to vote on legalizing recreational marijunana in the November general election.

With the 2020 Election on the horizon, every eligible American must face the same crucial question: who do you trust to lead our country for the next four years? The 2020 election has dominated the political debate ever since President Trump won in 2016. 

College students are one of the most important demographics for voting. Besides making up a major demographic of eligible voters, they are our country’s future. The youth of today are the decision-makers of tomorrow. How are the students of William Jewell College voting in arguably the most contentious election in our nation’s history?

In an independent survey conducted by The Hilltop Monitor, the newspaper asked 55 random Jewell students three questions about the upcoming election. The questions are as follows: Are you going to vote in the upcoming election? What type of ballot are you going to use in the upcoming election? Who are you voting for in this election?

Voting is the most sacred tenant in our democracy. Voter turnout for college students historically in presidential elections is 51.4 percent of eligible students. This is one of the lowest participation percentages of any demographic group. According to this survey, 92.7 percent of Jewell students are planning on voting in this upcoming election. The sample size for this study was relatively small, but any number close to the sample size shows that William Jewell has astounding voter turnout compared to other colleges.

How people are going to vote has become a hot topic issue. With President Trump and the GOP raising concerns about voter fraud – however legitimate or not these concerns might be – the type of ballot being used has gotten a lot of attention. The three types of ballots being used are absentee, mail-in and in-person. William Jewell presents a unique situation as a sizable portion of students are out-of-state students. 

Out of the 55 students polled, 33 students said that they planned on voting in person, and 15 students said that they were going to use the mail-in option provided to them by their state of residence. Meanwhile, three students said that they had applied for and will vote with absentee ballots. Four students were either not voting or weren’t registered to vote in the first place.

Almost half of the people polled (26 students) said that they were voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, while 19 students said that they were planning on voting for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. The spread between the two primary candidates between Jewell students is larger than the difference in the national polls. On average, Biden is leading Trump by almost 10 percent nationally. The Jewell survey has Biden with approximately a 12 percent lead over Trump. 

Oddly enough, nearly 11 percent (6 students) said that they were going to vote third-party. This amount of support for a third-party candidate on a national scale would have a tremendous effect on the next President of the United States. If the Jewell results were magnified on a national scale, it would be very similar to what happened in 1992 when Ross Perot ran and received about 19 percent of the popular vote.

Voter turnout has always been a big issue across the United States. The highest voter turnout was in 2008 when 61.58 percent of eligible voters voted in the Presidential election. One of the worst demographics of eligible voters for voter turnout is college students. 

The goal should always be for complete participation in an election, but the plausibility of that for any college is essentially impossible. With William Jewell having such a small community, the College has the unique ability to reach out to each student and promote voting. This is something that you simply can’t find in a big state school, and it might engender a more sizeable turnout among Jewell students as compared to that of other colleges and universities.

Amendment 2, a measure concerning addition of evidence in criminal cases concerning sexual crimes against minors, was affirmed by 71 percent of voters.  The legislation allows for prosecutors to submit evidence concerning past criminal acts that are deemed relevant to the court case.  Evidential submissions such as these are designed to imply that a person who has committed an offense of some kind in the past would be more likely to commit a subsequent offense.

Amendment 3 was rejected on Nov. 4 by over 50 percent following several months of intense argumentation concerning the amendment’s merits. It was initially proposed by the “Teach Great” campaign in an attempt to quantify teacher qualifications based on academic growth of students and limit teacher contracts to three-year periods in order to ensure regular evaluation of teaching performance.  The “Teach Great” campaign, headed by the Children’s Education Council of Missouri, made the decision to withdraw support for this initiative in early September after seeing less-than-expected levels of support for the legislation.

Rejected by roughly 40 percent, Amendment 6 attempted to reform voting regulations to allow for early voting in the six days preceding the election.  The measure was proposed in the Missouri Legislature by Republican Representative Tony Dugger argued that this would provide a chance for those working to vote during the normal open voting hours or those with other limitations.

Amendment 10 passed by a relatively close vote of 57 supporting and 43 rejecting.  The amendment is designed to prevent the governor from utilizing estimations of available government funds in budget recommendations to the Missouri legislature, while allowing him or her to speculate concerning projected surplus.